Slitherine

Hi All

Simple solution for the Terrain Question.

Separate the Initiative and Terrain type from each other and base them on what in important.

Initiative: 1D6 + Cavalry bonus = choice of moving first or second.
Terrain choice: 1D6 + General bonus (+1 for Field +2 for Inspiring +1 for 2 to 1 Cav advantage)

If the PBI want the terrain they can have a decent shot at it. The General and the cavalry will determine where the battle is fought. The Cav can now have a CHOICE of moving first or second which is what you can control if you have superiority of horse.

Eugene Rodriguez
Way out in sunny California [/b]

So you think that what is missing from the gameplay at the moment is the chance for one side to have their cake AND eat it?

Actually I think that where the battle is fought has more to do with good generalship rather than how many quadrupeds you have. Getting a more mobile opponent to fight you in the thick while your opposite number is trying to get you in the open.
As it is now if you have a highly mobile army you almost always can chose to fight where you are at your best and your opponent has little chance of stopping you. Granted you will move second but that is not an issue if you are creative and try to wrong foot your opponent, besides there is a lot of open board to dance around in when you fight in steppe.
As for having the choice of moving first or second because you have a mounted advantage fits in because there would be a choice of rushing in or hanging back and letting the PBI open up a flank.
The idea is not to give a greater advantage to Cavalry Armies, but to put the emphasis where it should be.
Just my opinion, and yes I have Cav heavy armies as well as all foot (Go Minnesota Tribe).

Eugene

I agree with you in that I too think there is something not quite right about the way FoG does this at the moment, I just think your solution might actually be worse

Having more mounted does not IMO make you more likely to be able to choose whether you are invading Italy, or waiting for me to invade Mesopotamia, hence terrain type choice should not be influenced by tactical factors like number of mounted. Or quality of CinC either.

And if we are manouevring around e.g. in a steppe region, even if you tactically manouevre better than me we are still in a steppe region, and that's where we will fight the battle. Who gets a good defensive position of their choice is another matter - if I'm Crassus I try to make my way to those small hills I can see in the distance, whilst your Parthian mounted chaps try to bring me to battle in the open before I get there - so *exactly where we fight the battle is to be decided somehow, but it's still a steppe region.

I personally like the terrain choice and placement system in the *cough* Other Ruleset (TM) better, although I'm not suggesting FoG should do exactly the same! (Especially since I prefer the FoG system for deployment of units).

So...decoupling terrain type choice from the PBI roll would get my vote. Maybe just make it a coin flip as to who chooses terrain type, to avoid adding extra complexity to rules or army lists? The dice rolls when placing individual terrain pieces introduce randomness that abstracts the pre-battle manouevring for a good position - if the dice allow me to put terrain pieces where I would ideally want them, then obviously my pre-battle manouevring was effective.

Then the advantage of winning the initiative roll would be siomply to have the choice of deploy second, or move second.

ShrubMiK wrote:I agree with you in that I too think there is something not quite right about the way FoG does this at the moment, I just think your solution might actually be worse

Having more mounted does not IMO make you more likely to be able to choose whether you are invading Italy, or waiting for me to invade Mesopotamia, hence terrain type choice should not be influenced by tactical factors like number of mounted. Or quality of CinC either.

And if we are manouevring around e.g. in a steppe region, even if you tactically manouevre better than me we are still in a steppe region, and that's where we will fight the battle. Who gets a good defensive position of their choice is another matter - if I'm Crassus I try to make my way to those small hills I can see in the distance, whilst your Parthian mounted chaps try to bring me to battle in the open before I get there - so *exactly where we fight the battle is to be decided somehow, but it's still a steppe region.

I personally like the terrain choice and placement system in the *cough* Other Ruleset (TM) better, although I'm not suggesting FoG should do exactly the same! (Especially since I prefer the FoG system for deployment of units).

So...decoupling terrain type choice from the PBI roll would get my vote. Maybe just make it a coin flip as to who chooses terrain type, to avoid adding extra complexity to rules or army lists? The dice rolls when placing individual terrain pieces introduce randomness that abstracts the pre-battle manouevring for a good position - if the dice allow me to put terrain pieces where I would ideally want them, then obviously my pre-battle manouevring was effective.

Then the advantage of winning the initiative roll would be siomply to have the choice of deploy second, or move second.

In the current system, the advantages of terrain choice and second deployment are supposed to be balanced by the advantage of moving first, whcih is good and I'd like to keep it. Hence a system that might allow one side to control the terrain AND choose whether to deploy or move first or second would be a bad thing.

IMO the 1.0 system favours mounted armies that like to fight in the open. This is because it is too easy to get open terrain and it is feasible to redeploy fast-moving mounted troops if forced to deploy first. This are the things that need dealing with. Basically the compensation of first move is not enough to balance loss of control of terrain unless you have a mounted army (in which case it is heads I win, tails you lose).

>In the current system, the advantages of terrain choice and second deployment are supposed to be balanced by the advantage of moving first, whcih is good and I'd like to keep it. Hence a system that might allow one side to control the terrain AND choose whether to deploy or move first or second would be a bad thing.

I agree, hence my cake comment. However I feel that (terrain choice + deploy second) far outweighs (move first) - especially since the player who has (move first) might be the one who wishes to be on the tactical defensive and might therefore do nothing or very little with the first move.

So I'm suggesting it will either be (terrain choice + deploy second) vs. (move first) - which is the same as today. Or (terrain choice + move first) vs. (deploy second), which might be more or less unbalancing depending on your personal preference. But note it is the person without terrain choice who chooses which of those it is to be. If the two players agree on whether (move first) or (deploy second) is the preferable option for their army in this particular battle, (terrain choice) will be compensating one of them for that disadvantage. If they disagree, let's assume they are both equally happy with the deploy/move situation, and (terrain choice) is then a clear bonus to one of them. But that would be true under the current system as well.

(* complicated of course by the possibility that whether a player would prefer to deploy or move second just might depend on what the terrain type is and how it falls on the table)

I'd like to suggest another alternative, unfortunately borrowed somewhat from the 'other' ruleset (TM) and needing a modicum of work from 'someone'.

It feels like it ought to be possible to assign an "aggression" rating to each army (indeed, this has been done for the 'dark side' set). A dice roll plus aggression rating (or non-rating for peacable types) can be used to assign the roles of 'invader' and 'invaded'. The aggression of a particular culture can be seen as due to cultural and/or economic circumstances and (to an extent that has varied over time) separate from the strategic or tactical skill of the generals involved.

One can then have the "Initiative" roll, using the rules as they currently stand, but with just one important restriction. Whichever side wins the initiative can then only choosefrom amomg those terrain sets that are listed as available to the army being invaded.

ironchemistryman wrote:I'd like to suggest another alternative, unfortunately borrowed somewhat from the 'other' ruleset (TM) and needing a modicum of work from 'someone'.

It feels like it ought to be possible to assign an "aggression" rating to each army (indeed, this has been done for the 'dark side' set). A dice roll plus aggression rating (or non-rating for peacable types) can be used to assign the roles of 'invader' and 'invaded'. The aggression of a particular culture can be seen as due to cultural and/or economic circumstances and (to an extent that has varied over time) separate from the strategic or tactical skill of the generals involved.

One can then have the "Initiative" roll, using the rules as they currently stand, but with just one important restriction. Whichever side wins the initiative can then only choosefrom amomg those terrain sets that are listed as available to the army being invaded.

The trouble with that is that the aggression of a nation is often determined geographically. For instance, a foot army is aggressive right up until it reaches the steppe, then it stops being aggressive. So, you make the Spartans Aggression 4 (for example) then they are as likely as not to go headlong into the Steppe... which they are unlikely to do, at least without changing tactics to the point that they are no longer Spartans.

By and large the terrain and initiative rules work fairly well. Some modification is required with rivers and roads and such like. But it isn't broken so why does it need to be fixed?

Some people might retort that the terrain rules work at their best if you are the owner of an army that wants as little terrain on the table as possible.

ShrubMiK wrote:Some people might retort that the terrain rules work at their best if you are the owner of an army that wants as little terrain on the table as possible.

In which case they need to practice more. I much prefer to move first than get to choose terrain. If somebody can't pick the appropriate terrain selection to cover the table in rough or difficult going then we shouldn't change the rules for them.

I wanted terrain in a game last night and approximately half of the table had rough, difficult or impassable terrain on it.

It's really not that difficult.

dave_r wrote:In which case they need to practice more. I much prefer to move first than get to choose terrain. If somebody can't pick the appropriate terrain selection to cover the table in rough or difficult going then we shouldn't change the rules for them.

I wanted terrain in a game last night and approximately half of the table had rough, difficult or impassable terrain on it.

Now let's come clean a little Dave_R.

You are known to like Bosphorans, which even though I beat you like a rented mule when you commanded them, I don't recall your exact PBI which I suspect was +2. You won and choose Steppe.

An army without LH and CV needs an IC to get to +2. So the odds are basically 50/50 that you win. It is also a heads you win, tails your opponent loses where you either get steppe or move first. The only time it doesn't pay off for you is when you get steppe and your opponent can take advantage of the first move.

Now last night given your terrain choice I suspect you were running an army of MF and LH. What was your PBI +2, +3, +4? Did your opponent also put out max terrain?

hazelbark wrote:even though I beat you like a rented mule

You had to pay for that! You were conned like an american at a royal wedding.

hazelbark wrote:Now let's come clean a little Dave_R.

You are known to like Bosphorans, which even though I beat you like a rented mule when you commanded them, I don't recall your exact PBI which I suspect was +2. You won and choose Steppe.

An army without LH and CV needs an IC to get to +2. So the odds are basically 50/50 that you win. It is also a heads you win, tails your opponent loses where you either get steppe or move first. The only time it doesn't pay off for you is when you get steppe and your opponent can take advantage of the first move.

Now last night given your terrain choice I suspect you were running an army of MF and LH. What was your PBI +2, +3, +4? Did your opponent also put out max terrain?

The army last night had PBI 1. My opponent put out as little terrain as he could. Since I chose Tropical, then that was rough going.

With Cv and LH I don't care about steppe, I just want to move first. Terrain, other than difficult doesn't disadvantage LH at all.

dave_r wrote:By and large the terrain and initiative rules work fairly well. Some modification is required with rivers and roads and such like. But it isn't broken so why does it need to be fixed?

I agree. The deployment order for terrain etc... will address this.

Moving second is less a problem for mounted/drilled troops as they can redeploy/react much more easily. Thats the way it is supposed to be and why cav/drilled troops cost more. If it is too much a difference (eg drilled MF over undrilled being a no brainer) then the solution is not in the terrain - but in either the troop cost or the movement rules. eg turn and move restricts movement distance to half.

Let's not be disingenuous Mr. R. If a horsey boy army wants to ensure they are likely to get Steppes, they too can take an IC. I really don't see where practice comes into the equation in that case.

If changes to road/river rules are made to limit their usage in inhibiting other terrain, that would be a good step forward...but maybe it will also result in more horsey boys preferring to try harder to win the PBI roll. Just a thought.

Another issue seems to me to be that the person winning the PBI gets to choose terrain pieces first. "Oh look, all the terrain on the table is the minimum possible size, parked as far out of the way as possible. How on Earth did that happen? Now, by all means go ahead and deploy as many large pieces of uneven as you like, in fact my LH positively begs you to do so"

There seems to me to be fundamental imbalance: horsey boy armies have more chance than others of getting their preferred type of terrain, at no additional cost. And without (it seems to me) much in the way of historical justification either, if you prefer to argue it that way rather than make it about gameplay "fairness".

Hi,

As a club FOG & FOGR player I find the terrain placement satisfactory . If it is changed the problem may be as with another rule set that the terrain can be so unfavorable for say a cavalry based army that the game never gets going. In the past I have seen corner sitting or base line sitting as the troops could not function in the terrain placed on the table. Before terrain placement is changed lets see what is planned for movement of heavy infantry etc in rough terrain .

ShrubMiK wrote:Let's not be disingenuous Mr. R. If a horsey boy army wants to ensure they are likely to get Steppes, they too can take an IC. I really don't see where practice comes into the equation in that case.

the maximum PBI is four. There are very few armies that can't have PBI three.

If changes to road/river rules are made to limit their usage in inhibiting other terrain, that would be a good step forward...but maybe it will also result in more horsey boys preferring to try harder to win the PBI roll. Just a thought.

To use the river/road combo, you need to win the Initiative. For the typical Horseboy army then Steppe's is the first option.

Another issue seems to me to be that the person winning the PBI gets to choose terrain pieces first. "Oh look, all the terrain on the table is the minimum possible size, parked as far out of the way as possible. How on Earth did that happen? Now, by all means go ahead and deploy as many large pieces of uneven as you like, in fact my LH positively begs you to do so"

Depends on the dice rolls of course, but you can still put down three big pieces of broken ground. Not ideal certainly, but it will stop the Cavalry and Medium Foot aren't bothered by the uneven ground at all either. Also - some battles weren't ideal.

There seems to me to be fundamental imbalance: horsey boy armies have more chance than others of getting their preferred type of terrain, at no additional cost. And without (it seems to me) much in the way of historical justification either, if you prefer to argue it that way rather than make it about gameplay "fairness".

Light Horse are expensive - the most popular type is LH, Average, Bow, Sword. They are 10points each. That is very expensive.

If you want to argue Historically, then LH armies didn't fight unless they wanted to. Hence there simply wouldn't be a battle. If they did have to fight then you can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't fight in the middle of the mountains.

Of all the proposed changes that are currently being beta tested, the terrain ones seem to be among the least contraversial and best received. I think they will eliminate most of the current issues that people have with this.

kevinj wrote:Of all the proposed changes that are currently being beta tested, the terrain ones seem to be among the least contraversial and best received. I think they will eliminate most of the current issues that people have with this.

hopefully something to prevent people from selecting terrain simply to not place it or minimise its size. Picking something you dont want seems counterintuitive and there is enough in there for steppeophiles already (open spaces).

Easy fix: increase the maximum number of pieces available of non open in steppe.